Nicholas, you have written what I would call an evidence-based CENTRIST argument. I am motivated to reinforce a positive concept of centrism, moving away from the mischaracterization of the “squishy” center. Why would I call your argument centrist? It uses the best evidence to advance an actionable agenda based in implicit liberal values. I am working to articulate the concept of centrism and centrist values to clarify things for myself and perhaps others. I am hopeful that ArcDigital will help me with that.
I prefer "moderate" over "centrist," in that centrism can be a search for a mid-point between two shifting poles, while moderation is a consistent worldview. And because some of the most prominent people who claim the mantle of "centrist" today are partisan ideologues in all but name.
But that might be overly nitpicky. The core ideas you mention—evidence-based, liberal values (in the broad philosophical sense, not the American sense of left-of-center)—are Arc's core values. We call it "responsible pluralism." Open to a variety of opinions, worldviews, and intellectual traditions, and in favor of good faith dialogue, but with high standards on evidence and reason, excluding those that reject those values.
I have grappled with the moderate-centrist issue and was impressed by I think Jerry Taylor's essay a while back on the Niskanen Center site. I have my reasons for preferring centrist, which I think are worth articulating. The short version is, for example, an ideal type construction between stablished institutions and values--let's say market decision-making and government oversight and intervention. The "center" here would be to use the evidence to choose a course of action that does not a priori favor one or the other institutions, which are in the ideal type are conceived as poles. Once a particular action or policy makes sense in that it works to produce an articulated desired goal, it might be pursued with zest. What I take from the Niskanen Center concept of moderation suggested to me a means of action based on the liklihood that you could be wrong. If I were less confident of my evidence-based position--sometimes the evidence is ambiguous, I would proceed moderately. But if the evidence were quite clear, I would be civil and open to the practicality of compromise, but I would pursue the goal with a passionate commitment that the concept "moderation" does not seem to allow for. Am I being overly picky myself? If I am civil, open to new/better evidence, and open to practical compromise, does that make me a moderate? Perhaps moderates can passionately pursue within the parameters I have suggested. If so, then I would say I am a moderate AND a centrist. And based on my knowledge of history and the ongoing research on issues which I care about, I am comfortable saying I am center left. Thank you for your engagement!
Nicholas, you have written what I would call an evidence-based CENTRIST argument. I am motivated to reinforce a positive concept of centrism, moving away from the mischaracterization of the “squishy” center. Why would I call your argument centrist? It uses the best evidence to advance an actionable agenda based in implicit liberal values. I am working to articulate the concept of centrism and centrist values to clarify things for myself and perhaps others. I am hopeful that ArcDigital will help me with that.
I prefer "moderate" over "centrist," in that centrism can be a search for a mid-point between two shifting poles, while moderation is a consistent worldview. And because some of the most prominent people who claim the mantle of "centrist" today are partisan ideologues in all but name.
But that might be overly nitpicky. The core ideas you mention—evidence-based, liberal values (in the broad philosophical sense, not the American sense of left-of-center)—are Arc's core values. We call it "responsible pluralism." Open to a variety of opinions, worldviews, and intellectual traditions, and in favor of good faith dialogue, but with high standards on evidence and reason, excluding those that reject those values.
I have grappled with the moderate-centrist issue and was impressed by I think Jerry Taylor's essay a while back on the Niskanen Center site. I have my reasons for preferring centrist, which I think are worth articulating. The short version is, for example, an ideal type construction between stablished institutions and values--let's say market decision-making and government oversight and intervention. The "center" here would be to use the evidence to choose a course of action that does not a priori favor one or the other institutions, which are in the ideal type are conceived as poles. Once a particular action or policy makes sense in that it works to produce an articulated desired goal, it might be pursued with zest. What I take from the Niskanen Center concept of moderation suggested to me a means of action based on the liklihood that you could be wrong. If I were less confident of my evidence-based position--sometimes the evidence is ambiguous, I would proceed moderately. But if the evidence were quite clear, I would be civil and open to the practicality of compromise, but I would pursue the goal with a passionate commitment that the concept "moderation" does not seem to allow for. Am I being overly picky myself? If I am civil, open to new/better evidence, and open to practical compromise, does that make me a moderate? Perhaps moderates can passionately pursue within the parameters I have suggested. If so, then I would say I am a moderate AND a centrist. And based on my knowledge of history and the ongoing research on issues which I care about, I am comfortable saying I am center left. Thank you for your engagement!
Phyllis, did you ever see the document Beau Weston put out at Niskanen about "heroic centrism"? You might find it interesting.
This is a link to the paper's executive summary, but you can download the full pdf from the link on the page.
https://www.niskanencenter.org/heroic-centrism-in-a-time-of-polarization/
Thank you Bernie! I do not think I have read that one but it surely sounds on point.🤓